milo
May 4, 05:18 PM
Just as long as they don't make it the preferred method for others to distribute software or it to become the only way.
I don't see how that would be possible without shutting out all existing software.
I don't see how that would be possible without shutting out all existing software.
toddybody
Apr 7, 12:19 PM
it's a lower cost model? Customers that want to pay less buy it, it's not that hard to understand and is done in all industries. You have no point.
Wow. I think you missed the point. At 1199, the MacbookPRO should have a discrete option...hell, POS HP's at 600.00 do.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
Wow. I think you missed the point. At 1199, the MacbookPRO should have a discrete option...hell, POS HP's at 600.00 do.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
balamw
Apr 14, 10:06 AM
You can always donate to the federal reserve. Don't let me stop you!
US Treasury not Federal Reserve. https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
B
US Treasury not Federal Reserve. https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
B
rtharper
Sep 10, 11:01 PM
This leaves iPods (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904073025.shtml), a Movie Store (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906185220.shtml) and the possibility of a new streaming Media device (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904194920.shtml) for the Tuesday event.
It also leaves the MBP. If it is not updated, I will likely be driven into a mad frenzy where I buy some other brand of laptop. Honestly, the things Apple is forcing me to do...
It also leaves the MBP. If it is not updated, I will likely be driven into a mad frenzy where I buy some other brand of laptop. Honestly, the things Apple is forcing me to do...
Ibjr
May 9, 03:16 PM
I'd be so pissed/happy if it were to become free... 1 year of .Mac and 2 years of MobileMe.
Pissed, I spent $99 for 3 years
Happy, more people will have access to MobileMe's benefits.
I do not understand this flawed logic. Making it free does not impact the service's values for the last three years. If you did not think it was worth the price you paid, you should not have renewed it.
I say this has someone who has paid for dotmac/mobileme since it stopped being iTools. Unlike you, my average yearly cost was 30 dollars because I bought them off of eBay.
Pissed, I spent $99 for 3 years
Happy, more people will have access to MobileMe's benefits.
I do not understand this flawed logic. Making it free does not impact the service's values for the last three years. If you did not think it was worth the price you paid, you should not have renewed it.
I say this has someone who has paid for dotmac/mobileme since it stopped being iTools. Unlike you, my average yearly cost was 30 dollars because I bought them off of eBay.
ravenvii
May 3, 09:23 PM
EDIT: Read above. Don't panic got it.
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 04:08 PM
What, precisely, did Samsung blatantly "rip off" from Apple?
Perhaps you didn't read the first sentence of the very comment you quoted, which clearly stated "industrial design" and "user interface," neither of which has anything to do with any of the hardware specifications you brought up.
Technically, they should sue every PC manufacturer on Earth for every ounce of silicon ever produced, because, after all, Apple did invent the personal computer.
Strawman fails.
Perhaps you didn't read the first sentence of the very comment you quoted, which clearly stated "industrial design" and "user interface," neither of which has anything to do with any of the hardware specifications you brought up.
Technically, they should sue every PC manufacturer on Earth for every ounce of silicon ever produced, because, after all, Apple did invent the personal computer.
Strawman fails.
Hawaga
Apr 20, 07:09 AM
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!! ASAP!!! :D
My 3GS feels like an old bump, way too screwed up to be anything close to responsive...
What was I thinking bringing it into to the desert on a regular basis... :cool:
Volume button popped out. Insurance will kindly replace the device if I send it and wait it out for a month. I want this new ibeauty nowwwww!!!
My 3GS feels like an old bump, way too screwed up to be anything close to responsive...
What was I thinking bringing it into to the desert on a regular basis... :cool:
Volume button popped out. Insurance will kindly replace the device if I send it and wait it out for a month. I want this new ibeauty nowwwww!!!
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
ECUpirate44
Mar 26, 10:03 PM
Fall iPhone 5?
Please no!
Please no!
hyperpasta
Aug 2, 10:58 AM
I like this guy. He's being reasonable. However, I'd bet that Apple does NOT update any other Macs to Core 2. Yet. Save that for Expo Paris.
You see, Apple always wants to make sure that everyone knows exactly what's in the spotlight at any given time. Right now it's the MacBook and Wireless Mighty Mouse. Before that it was the Mac mini and the iPod Hi-Fi. Before that, the MacBook Pro and iMac. Before that, the iPod nano/video.
Apple isn't going to all of a sudden roll out an OS preview, three new computers, and a new iPod.
EDIT: And oh yeah. Apple is also not going to roll out two iPods and a phone for the holiday season. I have my money on MWSF for the phone.
You see, Apple always wants to make sure that everyone knows exactly what's in the spotlight at any given time. Right now it's the MacBook and Wireless Mighty Mouse. Before that it was the Mac mini and the iPod Hi-Fi. Before that, the MacBook Pro and iMac. Before that, the iPod nano/video.
Apple isn't going to all of a sudden roll out an OS preview, three new computers, and a new iPod.
EDIT: And oh yeah. Apple is also not going to roll out two iPods and a phone for the holiday season. I have my money on MWSF for the phone.
DTphonehome
Jul 30, 09:28 AM
Verizon was reliable, although their network has been terrible. As I've said, I never get 3 bars or above, and I live in Denver! The service will constantly go out whenever I'm in NYC.
Dude, you need to hit *228 when you travel to update your roam list. And I live in Midtown Manhattan and with my Treo650, I've never had a dropped call and the only time I don't have service is in the basement of a massive building. I've lived in NYC all my life and have had a phone with literally every provider here, and VZV trumps them ALL in terms of network reliability. The phones are crap, the data is overpriced, and they cripple bluetooth, but the service is the most important feature for me, so I stay with them.
Amp'd is actually owned by Verizon, adnd Boost is owned by SprintNextel, using the same chirping technology as Nextel. Forgot the deal about Virgin.
None of those companies are "owned" by the major carriers...they are MVNOs who buy bandwidth from the majors to set up their own virtual network. They are independent from the majors.
Dude, you need to hit *228 when you travel to update your roam list. And I live in Midtown Manhattan and with my Treo650, I've never had a dropped call and the only time I don't have service is in the basement of a massive building. I've lived in NYC all my life and have had a phone with literally every provider here, and VZV trumps them ALL in terms of network reliability. The phones are crap, the data is overpriced, and they cripple bluetooth, but the service is the most important feature for me, so I stay with them.
Amp'd is actually owned by Verizon, adnd Boost is owned by SprintNextel, using the same chirping technology as Nextel. Forgot the deal about Virgin.
None of those companies are "owned" by the major carriers...they are MVNOs who buy bandwidth from the majors to set up their own virtual network. They are independent from the majors.
danpass
May 7, 01:49 PM
hmmm ............. iWork.com is free.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
firewood
May 7, 11:19 AM
Google wants to be Apple. So now Apple wants to be Google.
Given the market cap of those two companies, it doesn't seem like that bad a strategy for either of them.
Given the market cap of those two companies, it doesn't seem like that bad a strategy for either of them.
KindredMAC
Aug 7, 04:58 PM
Mac Pro:
Not bad. Not bad at all. A couple gripes if you'll bear me the minute...
#1- Everything is BTO.
Honey Badger video, fierce
honey badger youtube randall
badass-honey-adger
Not bad. Not bad at all. A couple gripes if you'll bear me the minute...
#1- Everything is BTO.
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 3, 10:34 PM
Merom in the MBP for sure. Now.
Apple is showing "64-bit" in the one banner.
But don't expect Merom in the MacBook anytime soon.
Apple is showing "64-bit" in the one banner.
But don't expect Merom in the MacBook anytime soon.
SiPat
Mar 29, 06:43 PM
To paraphrase all those advocating that Apple (10% market share) should licence OS X:
It is about time Kureha (70% share) licences it's technology to produce that whatyamacallit chemical for batteries.
It is about time Kureha (70% share) licences it's technology to produce that whatyamacallit chemical for batteries.
chrfr
May 4, 07:13 PM
Everything I heard said this image is not bootable nor usuable as a recovery media/installation media.
Everything you heard is wrong, then. It works fine.
Everything you heard is wrong, then. It works fine.
iMacZealot
Jul 30, 01:45 AM
I don't think I've hated any company so passionately as I hate Verizon. I have not one positive word to say about them. If/when Apple announces a phone, I'll pay the early termination fee on my Verizon contract and jump to the carrier with Apple's phone. Hopefully that'll be Cingular.
I have tried all four of the major cell companies in America except for Cingular, although my brother had it and travels a ton (new day, new city) and dropped it. Maybe it's better now.
Sprint has always been reliable for me, although their people will get you into a major frenzy with a $500 phone bill. The international is awful, might I add.
Verizon was reliable, although their network has been terrible. As I've said, I never get 3 bars or above, and I live in Denver! The service will constantly go out whenever I'm in NYC. The phones do seem to be cheap. My Samsung A670 is probably the only non-joke phone they had, and I've been pretty happy with it.
While I was in Sprint practically everyday trying to figure out what the hell I'd do for my trip to Singapore and Cambodia, they swindled me into signing up for 2 new phones and the SIM card for the international one never came! Luckily, my aunt was smart and had phones from T-Mobile with int'l rates of $0.99/min ($1.50 for Sprint, Verizon was even worse). Quite honestly, the voice quality was great, from here to Singapore. The service was really good, too. I'm just going to pay the Verizon termination fee and get a PEBL because I can't deal with the Nation's Most Unreliable network.
I have tried all four of the major cell companies in America except for Cingular, although my brother had it and travels a ton (new day, new city) and dropped it. Maybe it's better now.
Sprint has always been reliable for me, although their people will get you into a major frenzy with a $500 phone bill. The international is awful, might I add.
Verizon was reliable, although their network has been terrible. As I've said, I never get 3 bars or above, and I live in Denver! The service will constantly go out whenever I'm in NYC. The phones do seem to be cheap. My Samsung A670 is probably the only non-joke phone they had, and I've been pretty happy with it.
While I was in Sprint practically everyday trying to figure out what the hell I'd do for my trip to Singapore and Cambodia, they swindled me into signing up for 2 new phones and the SIM card for the international one never came! Luckily, my aunt was smart and had phones from T-Mobile with int'l rates of $0.99/min ($1.50 for Sprint, Verizon was even worse). Quite honestly, the voice quality was great, from here to Singapore. The service was really good, too. I'm just going to pay the Verizon termination fee and get a PEBL because I can't deal with the Nation's Most Unreliable network.
RebelScum
Apr 20, 08:55 AM
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
DeathChill
Apr 8, 08:14 PM
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
You're ignoring a huge factor: price. Mac products were more expensive than their PC counterparts. That's not at all true for the iPad. As well, Apple has huge brand cachet and their products are gorgeous to look at and touch.
I'm not sure that choice is going to be a huge advantage in the tablet market as there's not much differentiation that is going to matter to the normal consumer. Sure, there can be different sizes but most people are happy with the iPad's size (no, not tech nerds who demand to have a tablet they can carry everywhere ;)).
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
You're ignoring a huge factor: price. Mac products were more expensive than their PC counterparts. That's not at all true for the iPad. As well, Apple has huge brand cachet and their products are gorgeous to look at and touch.
I'm not sure that choice is going to be a huge advantage in the tablet market as there's not much differentiation that is going to matter to the normal consumer. Sure, there can be different sizes but most people are happy with the iPad's size (no, not tech nerds who demand to have a tablet they can carry everywhere ;)).
Squire
Nov 26, 04:43 PM
The likelihood of an Apple tablet increases with time because the technology gets better. Here are some of my rumblings from some similar threads started in 2005.
I think the tablet idea is plausible. Here's why:
-Many people wouldn't think twice about buying a new iPod. One problem is everyone already has one. Another problem is that you can't do any "computing" with an iPod.
Enter the tablet. It has a pod-ish name to keep people interested. It plays video, if that's your thing. It's cross-platform compatible (files and stuff) and the bundled software is amazing. Non-Mac users weren't afraid of buying an iPod. Non-Mac-using iPod owners will not be afraid to buy this. It will give them a little taste of what OS X is all about.
I think Apple needs a product like this, especially with Palm's new LifeDrive out (a PDA with a 4GB hard drive).
...And...
hmmm....maybe it's some sort of glorified remote control with a touch-screen interface to manage all your media via wi-fi and/or BT between yor mac, airport, stereo & tv?
Some random thoughts:
Good point. I seem to recall reports of Steve just grinning when asked about the problem of getting up and walking to your computer to change tracks (Walt Mossberg referring to the AirPort Express).
The thought of a video iPod doubling as an AE remote, although initially interesting, seems a bit out of whack. I wouldn't want a remote control any larger (width-wise, anyway) than a normal iPod. And I wouldn't want an iPod video any smaller than the current iPod.
Ever notice how Steve gives a reason for almost everything they do, especially if they were originally against doing it?
* entering the mp3 market: The devices had a limited capacity and/or terrible UI.
* iPod photo: Finally there was some content to display (while there was no content providers for portable video players) [Now, of course, there are music videos.]
* Flash-based mp3 players: They have crappy little screens and cumbersome controls. Solution= ditch the screen and make simple controls.
* Tablets: Who knows? They'll refine them or give us a good enough reason to want one. Same goes for video iPod, I guess.
Squire
I think the tablet idea is plausible. Here's why:
-Many people wouldn't think twice about buying a new iPod. One problem is everyone already has one. Another problem is that you can't do any "computing" with an iPod.
Enter the tablet. It has a pod-ish name to keep people interested. It plays video, if that's your thing. It's cross-platform compatible (files and stuff) and the bundled software is amazing. Non-Mac users weren't afraid of buying an iPod. Non-Mac-using iPod owners will not be afraid to buy this. It will give them a little taste of what OS X is all about.
I think Apple needs a product like this, especially with Palm's new LifeDrive out (a PDA with a 4GB hard drive).
...And...
hmmm....maybe it's some sort of glorified remote control with a touch-screen interface to manage all your media via wi-fi and/or BT between yor mac, airport, stereo & tv?
Some random thoughts:
Good point. I seem to recall reports of Steve just grinning when asked about the problem of getting up and walking to your computer to change tracks (Walt Mossberg referring to the AirPort Express).
The thought of a video iPod doubling as an AE remote, although initially interesting, seems a bit out of whack. I wouldn't want a remote control any larger (width-wise, anyway) than a normal iPod. And I wouldn't want an iPod video any smaller than the current iPod.
Ever notice how Steve gives a reason for almost everything they do, especially if they were originally against doing it?
* entering the mp3 market: The devices had a limited capacity and/or terrible UI.
* iPod photo: Finally there was some content to display (while there was no content providers for portable video players) [Now, of course, there are music videos.]
* Flash-based mp3 players: They have crappy little screens and cumbersome controls. Solution= ditch the screen and make simple controls.
* Tablets: Who knows? They'll refine them or give us a good enough reason to want one. Same goes for video iPod, I guess.
Squire
teme
Jul 21, 02:48 PM
About MacBook... when Merom is released, Yonah's price will drop. That would help Apple to make a
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น